Status quo at Westland gun show-Promoter dismisses N.Y. mayor's probe of sales as a stunt

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/10/31/GUN_SHOW.ART_ART_10-31-09_B1_QGFHFAA.html

Status quo at Westland gun show
Promoter dismisses N.Y. mayor's probe of sales as a stunt

Saturday, October 31, 2009 3:14 AM
By Elizabeth Gibson

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Hidden-camera investigations in July haven't resulted in changes at this weekend's Westland Mall Gun Show, although a Dayton show has made adjustments.

Private investigators posed as buyers at seven U.S. shows, including Westland's, to see whether vendors would sell a gun even if the buyer said he would fail a background check. The report said sellers in 19 of 30 purchases didn't follow the law.

Annette Elliott, who promotes the Columbus show with her husband, said the investigation was a stunt by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who hired the investigators. She said there's no need for change.

"If there's a problem, it's up to the law enforcement to do something," she said. "They keep talking about the gun-show loophole, but it's just a bunch of anti-gunners who want to close down gun shows."....

WHAT? These rubes aren't trembling in fear of The Great And Powerful Bloomberg?
Perish forbid!

Joking aside, I think what the Dayton promoter (see linked article) is doing is good, i.e. handing out pamphlets
spelling out the law and having 'house' dealers on hand to do NICS checks at a nominal cost

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. There is no loophole -

there's just a shitload of gun dealers who knowingly break the law.

[PavePusher]

4. Cite?

Or baseless accusations?

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Hard to cite something that doesn't exist.

Want to see the 'gun show loophole'? Look the classifieds in your local newspaper. Non Dealers(TM) don't have to do a background check there either.


I noted some activity in the video that was admission of criminal activity. I hope the BATFE is spit-roasting each and every one of them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. In the report cited above.

"Private investigators posed as buyers at seven U.S. shows, including Westland's, to see whether vendors would sell a gun even if the buyer said he would fail a background check. The report said sellers in 19 of 30 purchases didn't follow the law."

Whitewash it all you like, that is what the investigation showed.

Those who say "we don't need new laws, just enforcement of the laws we have" IGNORE reports like this that demonstrate violations of the law. Instead, the attack the messenger.

[pipoman]

7. Seems you have answered your own question, huh?

Those who say "we don't need new laws, just enforcement of the laws we have" IGNORE reports like this that demonstrate violations of the law. Instead, the attack the messenger.

Seems enforcement IS the issue...no need for new laws..the old ones apparently aren't being enforced..

[Tejas]

15. chirp chirp

gungrabbers contradicting their own drivel, imagine that!

[Euromutt]

11. What the report said and what the investigation showed are two things

For starters, I'm not actually convinced it's against the law to sell a firearm to someone who says he'd probably not pass a background check. There are ways to fail a NICS check through no fault of your own. If someone can cite the relevant statute, I'd be happy to be corrected.

So I can't help noticing that the "investigators" in this little stunt were very careful to not say anything that marked them unambiguously as prohibited persons; no mention of criminal convictions or retraining orders, only that the purchaser "probably" wouldn't pass a background check. The deliberate vagueness is an indication that this "investigation" wasn't intended to identify actual wrong-doing, but to produce something that looks really bad to the uninformed observer.

Now let me make it clear I don't advocate selling a firearm to someone who says he probably wouldn't pass a background check without at least some follow-up questions first (e.g. "why do you think you wouldn't pass the check?"). But doing something inadvisable is not necessarily that same as doing something that is actually illegal, even though Bloomberg & company make it out to be.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. There is the problem you don't know the difference between a seller and a dealer.

[SteveM]

17. Not to put a fine point on it, but "Gun Shows" don't sell guns...

they are hire-a-hall outfits who rent out table space to folks to sell guns, knives, memorabilia, clothing, bad beef jerky, etc. Within that milieu, there will be non-dealers and some dealers who will sell guns illegally. So, do we ban a meeting of people with guns to sell? It's like trying to ban raves: they just goes somewhere else. A better approach (debated in these threads numerous times) may be to open the NICS system to all individuals.

If you say there is a "violation of the law," then enforce the law against the transgressor, not the meeting/show.

[Xenotime]

8. Maybe all gun puchases should come through the government.

That would stop this problem cold.

[X_Digger]

9. Yah, works for MX.. oh wait. n/t

[Xenotime]

10. It must. Why else would they be getting all the guns from the U.S.?

[X_Digger]

12. You mean those fully auto rifles and grenade launchers?

Yah, go find a gun show where you can purchase them, then we'll talk.

All guns in MX are sold by the government. Doesn't seem to stop the narcotrafficantes from getting arms from central and south america, or back door via the government stockpiles and deserting soldiers.

How exactly do you think that would work here, where 300M+ arms are already in circulation?

Pfft. I've stepped over puddles deeper than the thought you put into that.

[Euromutt]

18. In effect, gun purchases DO come through the government

In the sense that any firearm that first enters the civilian U.S. market has to be sold through a federal firearms licensee (FFL), who has to contact a federal agency (the FBI) to approve the sale of every firearm via NICS, and whose records are subject to inspection by another federal agency (the ATF) that exists primarily to enforce federal firearms law.

It might be noted that in western Europe, where private ownership of firearms is much more heavily regulated than here, those intent on purchasing a firearm illegally generally have little trouble doing so. Volkert van der Graaf, who in 2002 committed the first political assassination in the Netherlands since 1584, bought the gun off some guy in a bar in a provincial town.

[Euromutt]

2. Not a bad article; still a few errors

The use of the term "private dealer" is good for one pounding of the forehead to the desk, especially after the correct term "private seller" has been used earlier.

Then there's this:

However, it's illegal for <private sellers> to sell to someone they suspect wouldn't pass a background check.

I'm not so sure. Title 18, Section 922, subsection (d) of the United States Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html) lists a number of things that prohibit transferring a firearm to a person if the transferring party "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" that one or more applies to the receiving party. But a failed background check is not, in and of itself, conclusive evidence of that. If you have the misfortune of having the same name and being about the same height and weight as someone who's in the NICS database, you might not pass a background check, even though you're not that person.

[Craftsman]

3. I am still wondering why Bloomberg and his bunch have not been charged

with buying guns illegally? I would have.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Key point

Not sure a state charge would work and I have no illusions about this administration charging him at a Federal level.

[Craftsman]

14. I guess some animals are more equal then others